IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that a writ of quo warranto is not maintainable if the respondent is not holding a public office at the time of filing the petition.

JUDGMENT :

(Manish Choudhury, J.)

In this writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, 20 [twenty] in nos., have joined together to assail a selection process undertaken inter-alia for selection of Gaon Pradhan for Lot/Village, 4 No. Pachim Sowaloni, Mouza – Lawkhowa, Samaguri Revenue Circle, District – Nagaon.

2. An Advertisement dated 05.09.2022 was published by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon inviting applications for filling up a nos. of vacant posts of Gaon Pradhan, in various villages under Nagaon Sadar Revenue Circle; Dhing Revenue Circle; Raha Revenue Circle, Kampur Revenue Circl; Samaguri Revenue Circle; Rupahi Revenue Circle; and Kaliabor Revenue Circle; in the district of Nagaon. One of the posts to be filled up by the said selection process was the post of Gaon Pradhan for Lot/Village, 4 No. Pachim Sowaloni, Mouza – Lawkhowa, Samaguri Revenue Circle, District – Nagaon.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that in response to the said Advertisement, the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 7 along with others, submitted their candidatures by submitting applications. The last date of submission of applications was 21.09.2022. After the last date of submission of applications was over, the applications were scrutinized and after scrutiny, the application of the petitioner no. 1 was found incomplete and was therefore, rejected.

4. It has been projected that the petitioner no. 2 to petitioner no. 20 are public spirited persons and the instant writ petition is preferred by them joining with the petitioner no. 1 seeking inter-alia a writ in the nature of quo warranto and for setting aside and quashing of a select list dated 11.03.2023 published under the hand of the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon on 11.03.2023.

5. Heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; Mr. D. Bora, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 7 6; and Mr. H. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7.

6. Ms. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner no. 1 submitted his application in response to the Advertisement dated 05.09.2022 for the post of Gaon Pradhan for Lot/Village, 4 No. Pachim Sowaloni, Mouza – Lawkhowa, Samaguri Revenue Circle, District – Nagaon but no call letter was issued to the petitioner no. 1 despite that the petitioner no. 1 fulfilled all the eligibility criteria for the post of Gaon Pradhan of the concerned village. When the respondent authorities scheduled the interview for the purpose of selection of Gaon Pradhan for Lot/Village, 4 No. Pachim Sowaloni, Mouza – Lawkhowa, Samaguri Revenue Circle, District – Nagaon on 27.02.2023, the petitioner no. 1 filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon for allowing him to sit in the interview on 27.02.2023. The said application was, however, not allowed and as a result, the petitioner no. 1 could not sit in the interview held on 27.02.2023. After completion of the selection process, the Selection Board headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon constituted for the purpose, published a select list of candidates for appointments in the posts of Gaon Pradhan on 11.03.2023 and in the select list, the respondent no. 7 has been selected for the post of Gaon Bradhan for Lot/Village, 4 No. Pachim Sowaloni, Mouza – Lawkhowa, Samaguri Revenue Circle, District – Nagaon. A complaint came to be lodged thereafter before the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon on 20.03.2023 stating inter-alia that the respondent no. 7 ought not to have been selected for the post of Gaon Pradhan as he did not fulfill the criteria laid down in the Notification dated 10.04.2018 whereby the Revenue & Disaster Management Department [L.R.], Government of Assam, had prescribed the qualifications for appointment of Gaon Pradhan [earlier, Gaonbura]. Ms. Borah has submitted that as the respondent no. 7 is